• US border agents shouldn’t have the courts’ permission to shoot people in Mexico | Guinevere E. Moore | Comment is free | The Guardian
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/28/us-border-agents-permission-shoot-people-mexico

    On 7 June, 2010, a US border patrol agent shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican boy, Sergio Hernandez, who was standing on the Mexican side of the border. The border patrol agent who drew his firearm and shot Hernandez twice, including a fatal shot to the head, alleged that the boy had been throwing rocks.

    After three days on administrative leave and an administrative review of his actions, the agent returned to his duties. No criminal charges were filed, and the United States has refused to extradite the agent to stand trial for murder in Mexico.

    [...]

    Hernandez’s shooting is not an isolated incident: according to the Washington Times, there have been 43 cases since 2010 involving the use of deadly force by agents, resulting in 10 deaths along the border.

    The reason that we have separation of powers is to prevent these types of abuses by one branch of government by holding it accountable to the other branches. Apparently, the courts are now willing to abdicate this responsibility when the individual is a foreign national standing on his home soil – even where that individual is a child. People like Hernandez and my clients shouldn’t have to crawl across the border in order to receive #justice.

    #Etats-Unis #assassinats

    • Et les «arguments» juridiques…

      Left with no other recourse, the family and their attorneys brought a suit in 2011 in federal court alleging a violation of Hernandez’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the US constitution. The district court dismissed the suit, stating that the US constitution does not apply to Mexican nationals with no “voluntary connections” to the United States. The family appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and, in a unanimous decision issued on 24 April, the court upheld the position that the Fourth Amendment did not apply and that Hernandez’s claim to the Fifth Amendment – the right not to have his life arbitrarily taken by the state without adequate due process of law – was not “clearly established”.